3 ms·

The solution is simple: allow low-power ADS-B to be radiated from drones and encourage/require its use: see http://www.uavionix.com/blog/the-case-for-low-power-

by zkms 10y ago

The solution is simple: allow low-power ADS-B to be radiated from drones and encourage/require its use: see http://www.uavionix.com/blog/the-case-for-low-power-ads-b/ http://www.uavionix.com/blog/the-case-for-low-power-ads-b/ Add a penalty for flying anywhere that could interfere any sort of crewed aircraft operations (including airports and flight paths, of course) without an operational and registered ADS-B transceiver. You fly next to big iron, you broadcast and listen to ADS-B like big iron, so nobody gets hurt.

est 10y ago
The Chengdu case DJI was facing was something totally different. I try my best to describe 1. the so called "drone" was witnessed by pilots from 1km away with bare eye. DJI products were very tiny and I doubt pilots could see that. 2. Yesterday evening it was raining and pretty dark outside, there's still a "drone" interrupting airport. 3. Lots of online speculation say it's not as simple as "DJI drone accident". It's rumoured there was a responder onboard the unknown drone.
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  > It's rumoured there was a responder onboard the unknown drone. ? not sure what this means?
pdelbarba 10y ago
ADS-B hardware would have to be certified ($$$$). It's an excellent addition to the current air-traffic situation but the actual protocol is not very robust. It's pretty easy to jam or overwhelm the system without trying if the software running the transmitter shits a brick. This system is going to become more heavily relied upon since not every airport has a radar (even controlled airports with a tower) and I imagine it will even be used to replace radar systems in some areas eventually. You'll have to get the FCC involved inevitably, but one option might be to lower the TX power until its range is under 2-3 miles line of sight. Enough distance for a 747 to get an alarm and evade, but not enough for it to take down an entire bravo ring if it fails.
- zkms 10y ago
  > but the actual protocol is not very robust. It's pretty easy to jam or overwhelm the system without trying if the software running the transmitter shits a brick. Yeah that definitely is an issue -- there's no fancy multiple access provisions on 1090MHz. Limited TX power needs to happen anyway for ADS-B to live on those battery-powered UAVs, along with along with implementing the protocol inside an ASIC that monitors/decodes its own RF output (and bricks itself if it's transmitting inappropriately) would likely be enough to avoid accidental disruption. I wonder if there's going to be additional spectrum and RF standards for position reporting systems specifically meant for UAVs.

by zkms 10y ago

est 10y ago

The Chengdu case DJI was facing was something totally different. I try my best to describe 1. the so called "drone" was witnessed by pilots from 1km away with bare eye. DJI products were very tiny and I doubt pilots could see that. 2. Yesterday evening it was raining and pretty dark outside, there's still a "drone" interrupting airport. 3. Lots of online speculation say it's not as simple as "DJI drone accident". It's rumoured there was a responder onboard the unknown drone.

brokenmachine 10y ago
> It's rumoured there was a responder onboard the unknown drone. ? not sure what this means?

pdelbarba 10y ago

ADS-B hardware would have to be certified ($$$$). It's an excellent addition to the current air-traffic situation but the actual protocol is not very robust. It's pretty easy to jam or overwhelm the system without trying if the software running the transmitter shits a brick. This system is going to become more heavily relied upon since not every airport has a radar (even controlled airports with a tower) and I imagine it will even be used to replace radar systems in some areas eventually. You'll have to get the FCC involved inevitably, but one option might be to lower the TX power until its range is under 2-3 miles line of sight. Enough distance for a 747 to get an alarm and evade, but not enough for it to take down an entire bravo ring if it fails.

zkms 10y ago
> but the actual protocol is not very robust. It's pretty easy to jam or overwhelm the system without trying if the software running the transmitter shits a brick. Yeah that definitely is an issue -- there's no fancy multiple access provisions on 1090MHz. Limited TX power needs to happen anyway for ADS-B to live on those battery-powered UAVs, along with along with implementing the protocol inside an ASIC that monitors/decodes its own RF output (and bricks itself if it's transmitting inappropriately) would likely be enough to avoid accidental disruption. I wonder if there's going to be additional spectrum and RF standards for position reporting systems specifically meant for UAVs.